Question For Former Lds Posters

[teddyaware]

At the suggestion of a board participant on another thread, I'm starting this new one. A particular post on that other thread caused me to wonder: Why would some former believers in the LDS religion want to discuss religion with Latter-day Saints (on this board) when they no longer believe in the religion of the Latter-day Saints?  

 

I ask the above question in a spirit of kindness and respect; I'm just genuinely interested to know the answer.

 

If asking questions of this sort are inappropriate on this board, I apologize in advance to the moderators. 

[Tacenda]

Maybe they leave a foot in the door, just in case it's true. Or, they want to lead people away because they think members are deceived. Or, they have to stay in the church for family, so it's an outlet to air their greviences and frustration. You'll never understand until you go through it. I never could when hearing of people who left or became inactive.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

At the suggestion of a board participant on another thread, I'm starting this new one. A particular post on that other thread caused me to wonder: Why would some former believers in the LDS religion want to discuss religion with Latter-day Saints (on this board) when they no longer believe in the religion of the Latter-day Saints?

I ask the above question in a spirit of kindness and respect; I'm just genuinely interested to know the answer.

If asking questions of this sort are inappropriate on this board, I apologize in advance to the moderators.

This is the sort of faith that makes up a large part of our identity. As such what happens within the Church, socially or doctrinally is still of interest, especially because most still have family and friends within the Church. Some just have a large ax to grind, and they are stuck, they may have left the Church on paper, but "they" have not moved on mentally. After all, it is like leaving 1st Baptist to attend 2nd Baptist Church where doctrines may vary, we are all they have to work from common ground. Edited February 9, 2014 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[The Nehor]

At the suggestion of a board participant on another thread, I'm starting this new one. A particular post on that other thread caused me to wonder: Why would some former believers in the LDS religion want to discuss religion with Latter-day Saints (on this board) when they no longer believe in the religion of the Latter-day Saints?  

 

I suspect the main cause is demonic possession.

[teddyaware]

I suspect the main cause is demonic possession.

Now that we've heard from some of the peanut gallery, I hope some who of those who no longer believe but participate on this board will chime in and answer the question.

I wonder if one possible answer is that discussing religion with Mormons is just more interesting than discussions with creed-bound, non-LDS Christians?

Edited February 9, 2014 by teddyaware

[Helen47]

I think when you leave the LDS church it takes a while to filter out the the mormonish things. For years after I would find myself humming "we thank three oh God for a prophet" Now I sing "Brother Sister let me serve you..let me be as Christ to you...When you weep I'll weep with you, when you laugh I'll laugh with you till we see our journey through" My journey is such that I do not feel at home here, neither do I feel that on the other board since I am not an atheist.I warm to people like David Bokovoy but BSpace infuriates me with his obsessions about Obama..

[saemo]

Morbid fascination.

Bored.

Edited February 9, 2014 by saemo

[The Nehor]

Now that we've heard from some of the peanut gallery, I hope some who of those who no longer believe but participate on this board will chime in and answer the question.

I wonder if one possible answer is that discussing religion with Mormons is just more interesting than discussions with creed-bound, non-LDS Christians?

 

I refuse to accept that I am part of the peanut gallery until I am given actual peanuts to throw at the participants.

[Palerider]

I come here for a number of different reasons a couple of which are:

 

In the church I felt (and rightly so) that I was restricted in my ability to voice my concerns publicly or privately, whether in a priesthood, Sunday school class or private interview. The only place I could say even approximately what I was feeling regarding the foundational stories was in a private interview with my stake president. And there he was free to "poo-poo" my issues with immunity, whereas I could not "poo-poo" his conclusions without fear of discipline.

 

Yet in a priesthood class where, according to the manual, we were forbidden to bring up topics of a controversial nature, my stake president had no trouble bringing up the topic of the 3 or 4 different narratives of the first vision and explaining them according to his and the church's bias, while not allowing anyone else to voice a different opinion without reprisal. 

 

So in reality the church at least at that time (approx. 10 years ago) was not a hospitable place to voice one's concerns regarding the church's questionable history.

 

Here, as long as I make a good faith effort to control how I criticise the church and it's leadership and point out the fallacies in the explanations given, I can do so without fear of reprisal. Sometimes I get a little over the top and for that I apologize.

 

Another reason I come here is so that people like me, who happen to come along and find this site, also find that there are people out there that feel the same way they do and I want them to know that it's o.k. to feel that way about the feelings of betrayal that they have and that "yes", some or even most of the "explanations" that are given for the "weird sidebars" in church history and doctrine are just ridiculous and it's o.k. to feel that way about them as well.

 

A third reason I come here is that it prepares me to make a good argument and to clarify my thinking and writing skills when addressing church issues. Making an argument isn't necessarily a bad thing. As a matter of fact it is the way we operate in much of life. To state one's case and then be open to being educated by others is a good exercise. It helps you to be able to critically analyze whether you are being told the truth and truly given reasonable answers or led down the rabbit hole and through the weeds.  

Edited February 10, 2014 by Palerider

[teddyaware]

I come here for a number of different reasons a couple of which are:

 

In the church I felt (and rightly so) that I was restricted in my ability to voice my concerns publicly or privately, whether in a priesthood, Sunday school class or private interview. The only place I could say even approximately what I was feeling regarding the foundational stories was in a private interview with my stake president. And there he was free to "poo-poo" my issues with immunity, whereas I could not "poo-poo" his conclusions without fear of discipline.

 

Yet in a priesthood class where, according to the manual, we were forbidden to bring up topics of a controversial nature, my stake president had no trouble bringing up the topic of the 3 or 4 different narratives of the first vision and explaining them according to his and the church's bias, while not allowing anyone else to voice a different opinion without reprisal. 

 

So in reality the church at least at that time (approx. 10 years ago) was not a hospitable place to voice one's concerns regarding the church's questionable history.

 

Here, as long as I make a good faith effort to control how I criticise the church and it's leadership and point out the fallacies in the explanations given, I can do so without fear of reprisal. Sometimes I get a little over the top and for that I apologize.

 

Another reason I come here is so that people like me, who happen to come along and find this site, also find that there are people out there that feel the same way they do and I want them to know that it's o.k. to feel that way about the feelings of betrayal that they have and that "yes", some or even most of the "explanations" that are given for the "weird sidebars" in church history and doctrine are just ridiculous and it's o.k. to feel that way about them as well.

 

A third reason I come here is that it prepares me to make a good argument and to clarify my thinking and writing skills when addressing church issues. Making an argument isn't necessarily a bad thing. As a matter of fact it is the way we operate in much of life. To state one's case and then be open to being educated by others is a good exercise. It helps you to be able to critically analyze whether you are being told the truth and truly given reasonable answers or led down the rabbit hole and through the weeds.

It's interesting because throughout my 44 years as a Latter-day Saint (I joined when I was 20) I've been well aware of all the same issues that seem to have troubled you so much, yet they had virtually no effect on me or on my testimony. They seem to have vexed and eventually succeeded in crushing you, but for me they were just points of interest along the way on my spiritual journey toward greater light and knowledge.

Perhaps where we differ most is in our approach. I learned that when it comes to so-called controversial issues it's best to go straight to the Lord with my questions.  Why? because I already knew I had a more in-depth Gospel knowledge than my 99% of my leaders anyway, so why go to them for answers when I knew ahead of time it was very likely they wouldn't provide answers that would truly satisfy me -- so I learned to go straight to the Lord with my concerns. And rather than spoon feed me with the answers, the Lord usually led me along in my studies and research until the truth of the matter in question was fully revealed.

 

Meanwhile, you went to your leaders for answers to things that usually would and only should be given to you directly by the Lord Himself. It's never a good idea to try to live the Gospel on borrowed light. Each of us is a revelator in our own right and we need not look to others for revelation when each of us have been

given the solemn promise that the Holy Ghost is able to reveal the truth of all things to us. I believe this is the mistake the Swedish Area Seventy Hans Mattsson made: He went to his leaders for answers when with the Lord's help he could have gotten them on his own.

Edited February 10, 2014 by teddyaware

[Helen47]

I think God has given us a brain to use and praying about it is not going to make a difference. Logic compels one for instance in the case of the Book of Abraham to become convinced the book if not what the LDS church says it is. Hans who is a FB friend of mine probably wishes it was all true but the more he delves into it he gets no positive answer..The papyri have been translated by qualified scholars. Andrew Cooke and Chris Smith have challenged Gee's still missing papyri theory. Whats left? It seems in the case of Hans the Holy Ghost has not been able to reveal the truth of all things.Why has Hans not received the same spiritual experience you claim to have? Is he just looking for an excuse to sin?

Edited February 10, 2014 by Helen47

[flameburns623]

At the suggestion of a board participant on another thread, I'm starting this new one. A particular post on that other thread caused me to wonder: Why would some former believers in the LDS religion want to discuss religion with Latter-day Saints (on this board) when they no longer believe in the religion of the Latter-day Saints? I ask the above question in a spirit of kindness and respect; I'm just genuinely interested to know the answer. If asking questions of this sort are inappropriate on this board, I apologize in advance to the moderators.

Hi, friend:

Unlike some of the ex-LDS on certain boards, I did not leave bitter, disillusioned, or angry at Mormonism. I just didn't believe. I still respect the faith of those who DO. Partly because: I left to return to something in which I COULD BELIEVE.

Two other things to bear in mind: despite being something of a student of (or perhaps because I am a student of) the Sophia Perenialis, the perennial, traditional wisdom at the heart of every true search for Truth, I enjoy touching base with many different communities of believers. "All Truth is God's Truth, all Wisdom and all Love, Divine". Or something like that. Reading comments by other users here and interacting with them enriches my own walk with God.

Finally: while I am making no formal or structured study: my academic training was in the field of Sociology, and I like to observe the cultural differences and similarities among distinct kinds of groups. The LDS are certainly different in some identifiable (and sometimes in more nuanced) ways. So are Seventh-Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses and Scientologists, btw.

Hope this helps! Thanks for asking!

Edited February 10, 2014 by flameburns623

[teddyaware]

I think God has given us a brain to use and praying about it is not going to make a difference. Logic compels one for instance in the case of the Book of Abraham to become convinced the book if not what the LDS church says it is. Hans who is a FB friend of mine probably wishes it was all true but the more he delves into it he gets no positive answer..The papyri have been translated by qualified scholars. Andrew Cooke and Chris Smith have challenged Gee's still missing papyri theory. Whats left? It seems in the case of Hans the Holy Ghost has not been able to reveal the truth of all things.Why has Hans not received the same spiritual experience you claim to have? Is he just looking for an excuse to sin?

I'm very familiar with the perceived problems pertaining to the Book of Abraham, but many years ago, when I sought out the Lord to gain an understanding of what it's all about, He spoke peace to my soul through personal revelation that I might know for a surety that that book of scripture is divinely authentic. The Spirit taught me the Lord deliberately allows His modern-day revelations to be challenged with strong arguments made against them by the worldly wise, and this to test the faith of His people to see if they will ultimately trust in the arm of flesh or in the voice of the Spirit.

I have become familiar with the voice of the Spirit and it teaches me that one day, in the Lord's due time, the Book of Abraham is going to be gloriously vindicated. And I am not troubled nor offended when folks like Hans Mattsson come to feel the way they do. It's only perfectly natural for him and very large numbers of the world's people to put their trust in the arm of flesh, because the arguments put forth by those who trust in the arm of flesh are supremely convincing to the mind of natural man.

To those unfamiliar with learning from the voice of the Spirit by revelation, the revelations of God contemporaneous to their day, like the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price, seem like nothing but pure unadulterated nonsense and foolishness, and that's how it should be. The natural man will never understand the things of the Spirit. Those who trust in the arm of flesh find revelation too ethereal a concept in nature, not substantive enough to trust, believe or rely upon.

So I don't find it strange when some Latter-day Saints jump ship because I know learning to trust in the voice of the Spirit through personal revelation from God is too vague a concept for the majority of the world's people to stake the whole of their lives upon. But once one does learn to trust and follow the voice of the Spirit, rather than the arm of flesh, it is surest beacon to knowledge, wisdom, safety and peace.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2)

 

Edited February 10, 2014 by teddyaware

[saemo]

Well, it is foolish to believe people.who have "jumped ship" have not sought God's help. I hear that so often from LDS that I'm beginning to think someone is teaching you all this idea.

 

God.creates us as rational creatures, with the ability to reason. Therefore it is logical to believe and expect that faith and reason work together and be suspicious of divine claims when they don't.

[teddyaware]

Well, it is foolish to believe people.who have "jumped ship" have not sought God's help. I hear that so often from LDS that I'm beginning to think someone is teaching you all this idea.

 

God.creates us as rational creatures, with the ability to reason. Therefore it is logical to believe and expect that faith and reason work together and be suspicious of divine claims when they don't.

And it is that very rationality and reason that is one of the strongest components of my LDS faith. For example, the LDS Church has what I believe is the most rational plan of salvation of all churches. The great LDS doctrine of the redemption of the dead makes pure common sense, especially for a Being who's supposed to be a God of perfect justice, mercy and love. So now that you no longer believe in the LDS plan of salvation, I'm interested to learn of the new plan of salvation that's taken its place. Is it as rational and reasonable as the LDS plan of salvation?

Edited February 10, 2014 by teddyaware

[saemo]

And it is that very rationality and reason that is one of the strongest components of my LDS faith. For example, the LDS Church has what I believe is the most rational plan of salvation of all churches. The great LDS doctrine of the redemption of the dead makes pure common sense, especially for a Being who's supposed to be a God of perfect justice, mercy and love. So now that you no longer believe in the LDS plan of salvation, I'm interested to learn of the new plan of salvation that's taken its place. Is it as rational and reasonable as the LDS plan of salvation?

My testimony is not of books, it is of Jesus Christ. I profess Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again. HE is God's plan of Salvation, FULLY revealed. He is who I seek to follow. Not 19th century publications of sketchy provenance.

Edited February 10, 2014 by saemo

[teddyaware]

My testimony is not of books, it is of Jesus Christ. I profess Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again. HE is God's plan of Salvation, FULLY revealed. He is who I seek to follow. Not 19th century publications of sketchy provenance.

And I can just hear some of the factional Christian heretics, who disbelieved in the leadership claims of Peter, James, John and Paul, say exactly the same thing about the New Testament.

And so what does that "Fully revealed" plan of salvation tell you about the fate of those who never had a chance to hear the Gospel, or of those who rebelled against the Gospel while in mortality on earth?

31 And the chosen messengers went forth to declare the acceptable day of the Lord and proclaim liberty to the captives who were bound, even unto all who would repent of their sins and receive the gospel.

32 Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets. (D&C 138)

This is the true justice, mercy and love of God in action.

[saemo]

 

 

And I can just hear some of the factional Christian heretics, who disbelieved in the leadership claims of Peter, James, John and Paul, say exactly the same thing about the New Testament.

 

There was no book called the "New Testament" during the lifetime of Peter, James and John.

 

 

And so what does that "Fully revealed" plan of salvation tell you about the fate of those who never had a chance to hear the Gospel, or of those who rebelled against the Gospel while in mortality on earth?

 

Christ died for all. All will be judged by Jesus according to their understanding of God and their fidelity to what they believe. God is Just, and does not judge us based on what we don't know.

 

 

31 And the chosen messengers went forth to declare the acceptable day of the Lord and proclaim liberty to the captives who were bound, even unto all who would repent of their sins and receive the gospel.

32 Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets. (D&C 138)

This is the true justice, mercy and love of God in action.

 

Non-Christian innovation.

Edited February 10, 2014 by saemo

[teddyaware]

Duplicate

Edited February 10, 2014 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

 

 

And I can just hear some of the factional Christian heretics, who disbelieved in the leadership claims of Peter, James, John and Paul, say exactly the same thing about the New Testament.

 

There was no book called the "New Testament" during the lifetime of Peter, James and John.

 

 

And so what does that "Fully revealed" plan of salvation tell you about the fate of those who never had a chance to hear the Gospel, or of those who rebelled against the Gospel while in mortality on earth?

 

Christ died for all. All will be judged by Jesus according to their understanding of God and their fidelity to what they believe. God is Just, and does not judge us based on what we don't know.

 

 

31 And the chosen messengers went forth to declare the acceptable day of the Lord and proclaim liberty to the captives who were bound, even unto all who would repent of their sins and receive the gospel.

32 Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets. (D&C 138)

This is the true justice, mercy and love of God in action.

 

Non-Christian innovation.

 

 

Point 1: Rejection of the spoken words and inspired writings of these Apostolic leaders would be a sure sign of apostasy and a rejection of the duly constituted Church authorities.

Point 2: On this doctrine, you still seem to believe somewhat as do the Latter-day Saints.

Point 3: Whom do you believe the dead were to whom Peter says the Gospel was preached? ---

6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. (1 Peter 4)

[Damien the Leper]

I suspect the main cause is demonic possession.

 

Are you talking about my avatar?

[Palerider]

Teddyaware,

 

I think you haven't really stayed within the parameters of the social hall seemingly innocent "question" you originally started with.

 

You are now on to discrediting the answers which were given to you in sincerity and thereby re-inforcing for most of us some of the reasons why we left.

 

You make huge assumptions about our journey out of the church (from the very little we have written) and then try to give us "spiritual guiance" in the form of a back handed criticism, to explain why we were so dumb and you were so smart and faithful.

 

I know you mean well but, I for one won't be responding to to anymore of this display of....let's just say....... mindless arrogance without malice.   

[Damien the Leper]

I left for several reasons. For me, LDS theology, doctrine, history, etc. no longer made any sense to me. It is so far detached from the first several centries church. It is heterodox and I can't partake in such a communion as it would be a mortal sin in certain instances such as taking the LDS sacrament.

 

I post here because I love talking with LDS people. My family is still LDS and I cannot turn against them or the LDS church so I must do what I can to help defend their faith on behalf of my family as they are not equipped to do so. Honestly...I'd rather someone be LDS than a Calvinist and that is by a HUGE margin.

[teddyaware]

Teddyaware,

 

I think you haven't really stayed within the parameters of the social hall seemingly innocent "question" you originally started with.

 

You are now on to discrediting the answers which were given to you in sincerity and thereby re-inforcing for most of us some of the reasons why we left.

 

You make huge assumptions about our journey out of the church (from the very little we have written) and then try to give us "spiritual guiance" in the form of a back handed criticism, to explain why we were so dumb and you were so smart and faithful.

 

I know you mean well but, I for one won't be responding to to anymore of this display of....let's just say....... mindless arrogance without malice.

It's hard to imagine arrogance without malice -- kind of an oxymoron. I wonder if it's possible to have malice without arrogance?

Edited February 10, 2014 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

I left for several reasons. For me, LDS theology, doctrine, history, etc. no longer made any sense to me. It is so far detached from the first several centries church. It is heterodox and I can't partake in such a communion as it would be a mortal sin in certain instances such as taking the LDS sacrament.

 

I post here because I love talking with LDS people. My family is still LDS and I cannot turn against them or the LDS church so I must do what I can to help defend their faith on behalf of my family as they are not equipped to do so. Honestly...I'd rather someone be LDS than a Calvinist and that is by a HUGE margin.

It makes me wonder what it is about Mormonism that makes it more acceptable and appealing than Calvanism for you.?

 

Do not ask posters about their personal beliefs.  You have had more warnings than anyone on this board,  I'm putting you on Limited.